Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Article improvement

I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, Automotive engineering needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article Automobile engineering much famous in South asian countries including Nepal and India to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.Franked2004 (talk)

Coupes vs Hatchbacks

I hate to start another body style debate, and i'm sure i'm not the first to ask this, but I wanted to get some clarification on the distinction between a coupe and a hatchback for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. Currently, the definition does not seem to be standardized across articles. For instance, the Jensen Interceptor article calls the car a "2-door 4-seat hatchback", while the Jensen FF article calls it a "2-door 4-seat coupé" despite them sharing the same body. It could also be classified as a "3-door hatchback" if you go by the conventions of hatchback articles. Additionally, what about mid engine cars which feature a large hatch to access both the engine and a rear storage compartment, such as the Ferrari 308/328? Do these count as "hatchbacks" or is there a separate designation for them? I know that particular article lists it simply as a Berlinetta. Curious to hear other editors thoughts on this. TKOIII (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a cultural problem, I reckon. The German language, for instance, doesn't have an exact word for a hatchback car. Instead, in German, certain cars are referred to as "de:Kombilimousine"; but this is rather deemed a proper subset of hatchback, and not an equivalent to a hatchback car. In addition to that, a "de:Kombicoupé" exists, which is also a proper subset of hatchback. Whether a car is a Kombilimousine or a Kombicoupé depends upon the rear compartment's usefulness, if you will: Cars with a decently spaced rear compartments are deemed Kombilimousine, whereas cars without any rear space are rather Kombicoupés. But this is just a German thing used in written communication. A VW Golf, which is clearly a Kombilimousine, is usually referred to as a "Kompaktklassewagen" (compact-class car) or (at least the older Golfs) "Dreitürer" (three-doorer) in verbal communication. Most people simply don't care or know the difference between different types of hatchbacks. It must be added that, the terminology also heavily depends upon what automaker marketing divisions make up. Liftback, Sportback, Fastback – you name it. And I could continue this discussion by bringing up how brands are viewed differently. But I won't. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

WP lacks a lot of consistency and a lot of that is through the base design and policy of using the sources whether they are correct, true, right, they all agree; or not. That may lead to questions like this but that policy will always prevail. If citations don't exist but sources do, feel free to improve any article to that level of inconsistency rather than set an agreed WP standard.

In my thirty seconds of looking at the Jensens; the rear screen lifts with the rear hatch/door/gate on the Interceptor hatchback but not on the Interceptor coupe. This source tells that the FF was only a saloon not a coupe (so it's sharing the Interceptor saloon (hatchback) body in other words - and you can tell from photos). I can't find any of the FF sources saying it's a coupe. So challenge whoever is calling the FF a coupe, feel free to erase that word, and start a new argument on whether it's a sedan or saloon ;) Rally Wonk (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• The distinction between "coupés" and "hatchbacks" and the distinction between "coupés" and "saloons" are both largely subjective and often meaningless without a lot of other context being in place. It's better to just identify whether a car has two, three, four, or five doors for these purposes. Running prose can identify what terms particular reliable sources have used to refer to a certain car, and also expand on things like how the terminology used might vary between different regions. Once again, it's a case where articles all-too-often just fall into the same pattern of some editor arbitrarily deciding to classify a car a particular way based on their own whims, and then an edit war possibly starting without clear resolution when another editor has an arbitrary whim, because the way these articles are structured leans far too hard on the idea that there's a single "correct" way to describe a car's size or bodystyle when those are clearly subjective terms (the infobox being a particularly bad case when it comes to these sorts of edit wars, if my memory serves me correctly). Reliable sources are often going to show a more nuanced and varied selection of opinions regarding whether a car is a "coupé" or a "hatchback" or whatever that frequently cannot be easily summarised in the infobox or the opening sentence of an article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is inconsistent because the sources are inconsistent. The sources are inconsistent because the manufactures are inconsistent. The marketing departments will classify a vehicle as whatever they think will make more sales. If hatchbacks are out of favour then it is called a coupe. If coupes are out of favour then it is called a hatchback. Nowadays, almost everything is called an SUV for the same reason - whatever sells the most. Stepho  talk  00:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Independent sources don't have to agree with the manufacturer terminology. They have freedom to describe what they see - which may be cultural for example. Rally Wonk (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  True. But my point was that there is no consistency at any level.  Stepho  talk  11:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• At Template:Infobox_automobile#Body_style we standardise on wagons, hatchbacks, etc counting that extra opening as a door. The opening would have to be such that a typical person could enter/exit the passenger cabin with reasonable effort. The Ferraris you mentioned have access to the engine and luggage compartments but not the passenger cabin.  Stepho  talk  00:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, whether you can directly access the passenger compartment, particularly without folding the seats down, has been one of the main standards i've heard for determining if a car is a hatchback. If a manufacturer's official literature, and/or the general automotive news coverage around a car, calls the car a 2-door coupe or some other term, while it would be considered a 3-door hatchback according to Wikipedia's standards, should I prioritize the body style which the sources consider it to be? Or should I prioritize Wikiproject Auto's standards? Or perhaps compromise and call it a 3-door coupe or something along those lines. TKOIII (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sources. Only if they clash, and after a conversation, should a compromise be made.

  Though I'd like to see an example of where a 3-door coupe exists, or where a car is being described as both coupe and hatchback in sources. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The Fiat 128 3P even has "three doors" in the name. In my heart of hearts I want to call these designs 3-door coupés, but then comes the Hyundai Veloster and makes everything confusing. I think that what matters is that most people can tell the shape of the car by hearing the description, and "3-door hatchback (or liftback) coupé" is about as clear as it can get. Amongst many other cars of this style, the Toyota Celica was available as a hatchback coupé as well as a traditional, three-box coupé - although Toyota calls their hatchbacks "liftbacks" when the rear slopes at over 45 degrees.

FWIW, everyone is just as confused as we are. I looked at 1980's publications from six different countries in five languages, and it's a mess. Within the pages of two German-language publications from 1985, the Ford Capri is variously referred to as a 3-door coupé, a "2-türiges Coupé mit Heckklappe", a 2-door coupé, a "Zweitürer", and a 3-door Kombicoupé. The level of disambiguation appears to depend on whether or not a car is available in a single coupé bodystyle (as for the Capri) or two coupé bodystyles (Celica) or several coupés as well as four-door iterations (Corolla). In the end, I think we as editors have to be grownups and be able to discuss what something should be called without being hair splitters or ethnocentrists or fully adopting marketing jargon. The main goal is that a significant number of readers are allowed to understand what is meant by the description.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

NSU "predecessor"

The infobox for the NSU Motorenwerke article falsely claims that D-Rad was NSU's "predecessor". This is, to put it politely, utter nonsense. I cannot see how to delete this rubbish from Wikidata. Please will someone else do so? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Motacilla: This is a Wikidata issue. Deutsche Industrie-Werke seems to be the predecessor of NSU, see citation here. However, the Deutsche Industrie-Werke page at Wikidata links to D-Rad, which is merely an article about one of the products of Deutsche Industrie-Werke. And thus, the Wikidata-generated infobox for NSU Motorenwerke links to D-Rad as the "predecessor". I removed it but I think I may have to establish a separate Wikidata entry for D-Rad to avoid recurrence. If anyone can tell me more, please do.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for fixing that. All I know is that the NSU company is older than the D-Rad company, so D-Rad cannot possibly have "preceded" NSU! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United States Rubber Company#Requested move 1 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Rubber Company#Requested move 1 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Know your prewar Dodges?

If so, you might take a look at this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I replied at the article but will reply here as well. I think it's a Dodge D5 from about 1937 [1]. Springee (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal of the Tesla Model Y L article

Propose to merge this following article:

• Tesla Model Y L into Tesla Model Y

Since it's basically a long version of the Tesla Model Y, as example of Long (or "L") versions from VW, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Jaguar and other luxury brands, without major diferences (than a third row of seats and longer wheelbase) to make it worthy for a separated article.

創新劇ゴジ SoshingekiGoji (talk) SoshingekiGoji (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I would suggest opening an AfD with a suggestion to merge. Springee (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely; please nudge me if/when an AfD is created.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

AfD is more for a deletion proposal that could end in a merge instead. If we know we want to merge it, we can add merge templates to the source/target and start discussion there. I've gone ahead and done that so it can be discussed at Talk:Tesla Model Y. And checking the page, I see discussion has already started. If it needs more consensus then we can take it to WP:PM. Otherwise, anyone can go ahead and perform the merge. --Vossanova ^o< 23:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Vauxhall Vectra

Vauxhall Vectra, being a rebadge of the Opel Vectra, has been a redirect since 2003, as per Automobile Project practice and WP:CARNAMES. An IP turned it into a stub article and I firmly believe it ought to be turned back into a redirect. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vauxhall Vectra whatever your opinion; thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - as it's just a rebadge model with no visual differences (differently from, example, the Vauxhall Carlton which nameplate was shared with two different cars, or the Cadillac Catera, which had more differences despite a Opel Omega badge engineered variant, who deserve their own articles). 創新劇ゴジ SoshingekiGoji (talk) SoshingekiGoji (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Best to list your points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vauxhall Vectra.  Stepho  talk  21:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Geely Boyue § The first-generation Boyue should remain in this article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Geely Boyue § The first-generation Boyue should remain in this article. Andra Febrian (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Is Anti-hijack systems redundant? Should it be deleted?

As an IP editor I cannot nominate an article for deletion, but I would like to suggest Anti-hijack systems should be deleted, because its redundant.

• It has no references, and looking at a few versions of the page it seems to have been unable to acquire references in quite a few years of existence.
• I could only find two anti-carjacking systems which seem to operate notably differently to existing anti-theft systems, the Blaster (flamethrower), and the Clifford Blackjax system (which uses two buttons to enter a PIN code or shuts off the engine after a short distance is travelled).
• There was also anecdotal mention that car doors in South Africa tend to automatically lock when a car is stationary/slow moving for helping to protect against carjackings, but that hardly seems significant enough or distinct enough from the antitheft systems to warrant its own article. This appears to be what the lockout section is referring to, that said other than a couple of anecdotal mentions I couldn't find anything on it.
• The whole transponder' section seems to be referring to keyless entry, the example of Jeremy Clarkson walking up to an S600 is just describing the S600's keyless entry system. If some systems happen to automatically shut down if they stop detecting the transponder, sure maybe that has some anti-carjacking applications, but it seems similarly indistinct from the existing anti-theft system as in the case of the lockout example.
• The microswitch system just sounds like its describing a car alarm.

If there is any noteworthiness to this topic, it'd make more sense as a section to Carjacking, or in the case of specific technologies, then maybe a sentence or section on the pages for immobiliser, car alarm, power door locks and keyless entry. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:781F:C4:5D9C:568D (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

New Discord thread for automobiles

A new thread has been created named WikiProject Automobiles on the Wikipedia Discord server. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 02:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean that this talk page is being forked? Sounds non-optimal to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Ram 1500 REV move proposal

A pair of proposed page moves is under discussion at Talk:Ram 1500 REV (Range-Extended) § Requested move 5 October 2025. --Sable232 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pedestrian safety through vehicle design#Requested move 23 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedestrian safety through vehicle design#Requested move 23 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions

An editor has proposed that the guideline status of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions be revoked. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Similarly, demote Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions to WikiProject advice page. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

New template for linking model names

Yesterday I created a new template called {{Short link}} that was meant to make linking between models easier (see its documentation for usage). The plan was for markup like "{{short link|Toyota|Celica|(A20)}}" to display as simply "Celica". I planned to mention it here today to see if this project thought it was good or bad to use in car articles. But hours later it was nominated for deletion. It would be appreciated if editors could have a look at the template and then express their opinion on whether it is good or bad at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 18#Template:Short link.  Stepho  talk  03:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's a need to pipe Toyota Celica (A20) into Celica, if there's a specific need to link to the A20 section then why not just mention it as Celica (A20) so that readers understood which Celica generation it is referring to without having to click on the link. Otherwise Celica should just link to Toyota Celica, as in the Celica nameplate in general. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The idea is for when we have models referring to other models of the same year. So the Carina A20 could link to the Celica A20 model article by just displaying the link as "Celica". However, the article could equally well use "{{short link|Toyota|Celica (A20)}}" to display as simply "Celica (A20)" if the editor thinks that is better. Or, if the editor thinks the article covering all generations is better then they could use "{{short link|Toyota|Celica)}}" to display as simply "Celica".  Stepho  talk  03:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ram 1500 REV (Range-Extended)#Requested move 5 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ram 1500 REV (Range-Extended)#Requested move 5 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Anachronistic classifications of cars

With a lot of articles on here about older cars there's a recurring issue with applying modern terminology to them in ways which are often anachronistic. In some cases this is just silly, like listing the Renault 4CV's class in the infobox as "supermini" (which is quite obviously wrong to anyone aware of the etymology of that term), but in other cases it's more pervasive, like applying Euro Car Segments to models which significantly pre-date this categorisation system in a way which frequently winds up implying that these cars were sold in a market segment which didn't really exist at the time (particularly relevant before the European Common Market when national car markets were far more insular). That doesn't mean we can't compare how period sources describe a car to how modern sources describe a car, or leave footnotes explaining historical context in more modern terms (eg. the decline of two-door saloon cars leading to many older models to be reinterpreted as coupés), but for now my main concern is just avoiding misleading people with ahistorical classifications. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree that referring to cars by terms which gained popularity long after they were discontinued is inappropriate. Too many editors wasting time adding tags and generally acting like bots.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Isuzu (Anadolu)#Requested move 17 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isuzu (Anadolu)#Requested move 17 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Happy halloween, pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)